The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes place tomorrow with guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Gigawitt, on 8 Jan you posted:
"You can make a legitimate case for whatever numbers you like between nothing (and everything on future royalties) to a billion pounds. Obviously most commentators will be subject to motivated thinking so they’ll give the biased numbers they want.
We just have to wait and see, which is the hardest work of all."
$1bn was 'legitimate' that day according to your good self. Care to comment?
"Does anyone here think BT or ME would publicly say figures that were anything other than at the high end? We’ve all sold a second hand car right? At no point do you start with what you’d accept."
NGR - misleading the market in such a way would be a grave misstep (D&O duties considered), so I personally doubt it. Officers of the company either speak their mind of the truth or say nothing at all.
I am closest to HH with the views he has expressed as to likely final settlement amount but prefer to leave that bit of calculation to others in the main. A low end royalty of $10-20 was once quoted in the mix, so why is $5 now thought to be a more reliable figure - is this just pure caution after the Monday RNS? Either way it is a negotiation and we can expect to see a large discount on those future royalties.
in
BBD -maybe I have been unclear, or quite possibly I am on a totally different page to everyone else...... Your comment still leaves me slightly unsure what others actually think, but I can probably guess what is the majority view. The SP tells me that. Reading Monday's board will give me a better insight into investor sentiment as no doubt a range of possible meanings would have been on show as the news was dissected that day.
I promised myself that I would back my own judgement on this case, and that's what I will keep doing. I am happy to elaborate on my views in greater detail, but I suspect that I will have it won't be today. Maybe I will even buy a few more shares first!
buzzzfluuderjohn
There are two entries for HL:
1. Hargreaves Lansdown Stockbrokers Ltd. 40,623,811 12.6%
2. Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Ltd. 15,583,000 4.83%
Someone will know better than I, but I would think that your comment relates to no.2, with no. 1 being nominee accounts including my own holding.
GigW
Your narrative on the events which have unfolded before you is almost entirely wrong (IMO, of course). Nanoco reached a settlement for those reasons. What else made S offer fair value for the patents, if it was not the risk of being penalised by a harsh damages verdict including a wilfulness punishment? You don't seem to be able to answer that.
You also seem to have a polar view of these matters by perennially excluding possible outcomes, and have shown relish in a sliding share price as if it were some sort of personal victory. However, there is another side to this and this time it does not require an understanding of the law or court processes in US patent cases. It only requires close inspection of the company RNS output and a bit of critical thinking.
Even now I would say it is important that you do not prejudge the outcome of the final settlement - it is not certain what it will be! I would disagree with anyone who says it can ONLY be a figure at the low end. One might say the company is steering us away from the views of any market 'analysts', which includes Edison. If you take their latest settlement update note then arguably they have incorrectly interpreted the full meaning of the company RNS output with potentially disastrous results for those who pay heed to it. If for some unknown reason they do have some other info that the rest of us don't, then that's a wholly different matter.
Personally, I am not betting on any specific outcome but I am fully expect it to be a good one for this company and its shareholders. We will just have to wait to see how high that takes the share price.
Hi Troublesome. I find that very hard to believe. If true, it must be a very long time ago. I certainly don't recall ever having agreed with NigW general views. I sincerely hope his profound negativity towards this company's litigation propsects hasn't caused too many to sell their shares on the cheap.
My "constant rhetoric about a “compelling case” for a multi-billion dollar settlements"
Yep Gigs, it is the genuine prospect (a $1bn+ jury award against S) which has forced S hand into making a fair value settlement offer for N's worldwide patents for all-time. All this at the sort of royalty level N might well have hoped to negotiate in 2016. Or else why did S make that offer now....?
For its part N has done a deal which offsets claimed patent value against trial risk with the added bonus of securing early payment.
You DO get this don't you.....?
Were it not for the risk of a high award (against S) N might have been ready to accept a really low-ball offer from S - if it got an offer at all.
I am delighted that we got this result, and piffle if you think my positivity on this share has let anyone down when the shares have nearly always traded below current SP, and ought to not go lower from here if we get the expected result N management have told us they are about to deliver.
BTW your memory of my posting history is A1 for someone who only joined the board recently!
" If the amount was ridiculously small they almost certainly wouldn't have accepted it, but if it was big they wouldn't have issued the second RNS."
Impossible to be sure BBD. I place more emphasis on the other reasons the 2nd RNS had to be released regardless of the other info it did contain. For me that extra detail is pure gloss. It does not lead one to a specific amount big or small, though I would expect any offer S did make which awarded N some of the future royalty stream might have been enough to pass the fair value test. S would surely not start the bidding right at the top.
Gigs I am catching up on the day's posts and I am now at 13:00 where you have steadfastly repeated your thesis that LOAM selling IS bad news and can only be bad news. There are always plenty of reasons for selling and, but usually, only one reason for buying. And whatever you say, LOAM have been relasiing profits at all sorts of prices, long before the settlement news arrived. That was an obvious liquidity point to realise some of their gains, almsot certainly pre-planned, and nothing can be read into it.
"The update on 9/1 was forced by speculation on internet forums, which means mostly here. As a result he market remained orderly so there's no reason to suspend the shares"
Gigawitt - And you say that is due to investors speculating. But that's only half of the story so think again
And
My last message was garbled in its haste (like the 6/1/23 RNS!). I''ll try again:
bliuerill, if you have read the board over the last few days you will see that nothing is self evident to anyone - a bigger range of views would be difficult to find anywhere. My take on matters is simple, and straightforward, and it excludes all reasonable possibility of dishonesty and underhand dealings, as that is rarely the explanation except on the Wild West of AIM. I consider that it is extremely unlikely that inside knowledge is the cause of recent volatility in the SP and the most recent bout of selling by LOAM. I would not make investment decisions on that flimsy basis as BT has shown himself to be been and honest, and trustworthy, throughout this whole saga. Privately he might admit the 6/1/23 should have been more circumspect as to final outcomes in tone and content. But I imagine that there was enormous time pressure to put something out, and plenty of sleep deprivation too.
I do not discount the possibility that the company wanted to put up a strong front to Samsung but that would have been a very grey area for the company to tread, particularly if it concealed N's secret ambition to settle at much less, and hence they did not issue any specific valuation guidance. I think that Samsung made an offer for fair value for the global patents - and for their lifetime - and that's what we will get. On that point, the company has been very explicit.
It is obvious that an agreed settlement would have to be at a discount on the true value of the patents, but to gain nothing for future royalties is a giveaway, not fair value, so that cannot be the final settlement agreement outcome.
I've got a pint of Guinness with BT's name on it when he brings home the bacon, and I expect to see many of you in Runcorn.
bliuerill, if you have read the board over the last few days you will see that nothing is self evident to anyone - a bigger range of views would be difficult to find anywhere. My take on matters is simple, and straightforward, and it excludes all reasonable possibility of dishonesty and underhand dealings, as that is rarely the explanation except on the Wild West of AIM. But it is extremely unlikely to be the cause of recent volatility in the SP and the most recent bout of selling by LOAM.
I do not discount the possibility that the company wanted to put up a strong front to Samsung and hence they did not issue any specific valuation guidance, but that's a very grey area for the company to tread, particularly if it concealed a secret ambition to settle at much less. Again, I doubt it. I think that Samsung made an offer for fair value for the patents and that's what we will get. It is obvious that a settlement would have to be a discount on the true value of the patents, but to gain nothing for future royalties is a giveaway, not fair value, so that cannot be the final settlement agreement outcome.
I've got a pint of Guinness with BT's name on it when he brings home the bacon, and I expect to see many of you in Runcorn.